Man-Made Climate Change ... take 78

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Flames89

Unfortunately I don't have the time to dig up the HUNDREDS of scientists involved in this study to put their qualifications infront of you. I also don't have time to pull the same qualifications from the THOUSANDS of scientists who have agreed on this issue.

Yes, the media says "scientists", because, by nature, a media piece has to be accessible to the common folk. What you want is a monster bibliography with every written word.

Experts and scientists say smoking is bad for you ...

The problem I have with all of this is that the panel opening shuns and does not let dissenting voices participate in the discussion. Many many good scientists who have a dissenting view, that is a view that the contribution due to man may be small or not at all quantifiable at his stage, have been sounding silenced.

I personally don't find it surprising when a panel made up of people who have made up their mind comes out with conclusions that support what they already believed before having a "debate". There are dissenting viewpoints that to look like good science. If it isn't good science then the scientists on these panels have to openly debate that and show why. But by and large they don't do that and haven't done so. And we aren't talking scientists supported by big business or anything like but honest to goodness scientists who look at the data they've collected and come to a conclusion that differs from someone elses study.

Now this paper may address that. You can't tell from the abstract or from what a reporter says about it. It may also be a good degree of hand waving but because it's a hot topic it gets center stage in a respected journal (yes indeed high quality academic journals don't just look at data quality but what is hot at the current time).

Note this isn't simply a problem in the realm of climate change. This is a problem in every scientific discipline.

btw this is what the editors comment on the article contains:

"Many natural biological and physical systems are undergoing changes consistent with a gradual rise in temperature. Such changes have occurred on all continents and in most oceans since at least 1970. An Article in this issue is the first to formally link the observed changes to human-induced climate change. The study is a meta-analysis that uses a larger database than the recent IPCC report, and it takes account of land-use change and other complications. The authors conclude that anthropogenic climate change is affecting physical and biological systems globally. But as Francis Zwiers and Gabriele Hegerl point out in News & Views, this proof based on the principle of joint attribution stops short of the statistical certainty that would be provided by 'end-to-end' models linking human activity directly to the observed changes, rather than via effects on the climate system."


Now I have no idea off hand what that means exactly other than it certainly suggests that the link is NOT definitive at all.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think what has a lot of people nervous is the manner in which it is being rolled out.

A hockey example ...

If I'm sitting around in my living room watching hockey with a bunch of buddies and Buddy A says ...

"man that Iginla, best draft pick every by the Flames"

I can respond to this in many ways.

My given choice would be ...

"Actually Dallas drafted him, he was traded to the Flames for Niewendyk"

if Buddy A comes back with ...

"did not, you are full of it, stop overreacting, and purposely making the Flames draft record look bad by making up data that fits your argument"

once again I can go a few ways.

"no seriously dude - I'm getting a beer, you want one? - I have like a fact book that will prove this".

Yet it seems like the global warming crowd would go to ...

"this should not be debated. Those that believe Iginla was drafted should be sileced. The truth is in, there is no need for debate, you are on the payroll of the Kamloops Blazers! We are wasting time talking about draft records during a hockey game. These draft deniers should be uncertified as hockey fans".

If the science is in to the level that they report it to be then they should welcome all debate as a great opportunity to further prove their cause. The insults, and anger to any debate (which is really the whole point of science isn't it) is a little unnerving to me.

And I don't have an opinion either way ... nothing in my education gives me an opinion at all. But something seems a little fishy in this debate.

Horrible example Bingo. Here's why. We all know that Iginla in FACT was not drafted by the Flames.
We can't equate Iginla not being drafted by the Flames with not knowing the full facts about climate change.
Or your example is more accurate like this:
I'm sitting around with some friends.
No one knows where Iginla was drafted. But some people working in the hockey field, infact in the NHL no less, all come and assure us that Iginla was in fact drafted by Dallas.
But those that don't really believe that source continue to argue that the issue is not clear. Where was he drafted from, who knows. We only have media types and agents telling us what they think they know. They have an angle and are being paid. etc etc.
You're concerend about the amount of attention with unproven issues flooding this area. I hear your point or at least understand the stance behind it.
But if you're someone that; as I do, thinks the planet is going to get more and more affected enormously with this, then you'd be annoyed with all the inaction that comes from the need for complete proof and a clouding of the issues.
At least that's what I find fishy.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Just seemed a bit fly by to me.
Lots of people are questioning large sections of the scientific community and their conclusions and you swept in with a a story about a plane that was found in 1992 as if that was all the proof you needed.
I know you didn't say that was all the proof you needed because you didn't say much after you posted the link. I guess you asked some questions (which I have to admit I thought you were asking in a retorical way).
But it's a lot easier to poke holes in arguements and flip the questions around than to show your "side".
And when I say side that's just my opinion. I think you're either one side or the other with this. Unreasonable maybe but I think you either think man made climate change is occuring or you never will be convinced of such.
So. What's your side. Do you just dislike the new religion as you put it and think it's all hog wash?

a bit fly? can i assumer you mean't effy? what is effy? the facts? they plane was buried under 250+ feet of ice, that is a fact...and its effy? Strange, evidence is more effy than facts...

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Horrible example Bingo. Here's why. We all know that Iginla in FACT was not drafted by the Flames.
We can't equate Iginla not being drafted by the Flames with not knowing the full facts about climate change.
Or your example is more accurate like this:
I'm sitting around with some friends.
No one knows where Iginla was drafted. But some people working in the hockey field, infact in the NHL no less, all come and assure us that Iginla was in fact drafted by Dallas.
But those that don't really believe that source continue to argue that the issue is not clear. Where was he drafted from, who knows. We only have media types and agents telling us what they think they know. They have an angle and are being paid. etc etc.
You're concerend about the amount of attention with unproven issues flooding this area. I hear your point or at least understand the stance behind it.
But if you're someone that; as I do, thinks the planet is going to get more and more affected enormously with this, then you'd be annoyed with all the inaction that comes from the need for complete proof and a clouding of the issues.
At least that's what I find fishy.

I hear you ...

no action can be bad, but rushed action can be just as bad. Right now it seems like there's a heck of a lot more of the latter than the former when it comes to government programs etc, that seem to be doing nothing for global warming but steering focus away from world issues that aren't for debate at all.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

a bit fly? can i assumer you mean't effy? what is effy? the facts? they plane was buried under 250+ feet of ice, that is a fact...and its effy? Strange, evidence is more effy than facts...

Fly-by, or drive-by. Take your pick.
What does assumer mean?

So you think that this plane that was found in 92 means the arguements for climate change are over?

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I hear you ...

no action can be bad, but rushed action can be just as bad. Right now it seems like there's a heck of a lot more of the latter than the former when it comes to government programs etc, that seem to be doing nothing for global warming but steering focus away from world issues that aren't for debate at all.

Well I hear you too. And it's not like I don't admit that issues such as ethanol and all the corn being used to make it aren't far worse for the environment than the situation before. Stripping of forests to make room for corn crops is devastating.
However, i think if most people (populaces, governments, agencies, political parties) were on board with what is happening the solutions would be easier to come by than the situation we have now.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Thor

This is what tobacco did, they found 'experts' to muddy up the debate on whether smoking firstly was bad for you, and later on to convince the public smoking didn't cause cancer.

Ironically many of the same PR firms and people hired by the tobacco lobby in the past to create confusion in the public perception of tobacco is now working to create confusion in the global warming issue.

They don't care about anything other than just making people think that there is a huge debate amongst scientists, when in reality its a vast majority supporting the data/conclusions while the small handful of global warming critics go on CNN playing the 'all the facts are not in' type debate.

I mean don't kid yourselves, there are hundreds of billions of dollars riding on how governments react.

If people over do it, it could be a disaster on its own, if we do nothing and sit around arguing we may reach a tipping point that will devastate us anyhow.

I'm a skeptic by heart, so I take all the science with a grain of salt, but when such an overwhelming majority of various science fields are saying the same thing, I listen carefully.

I just wish the debate was now on: "What do we do next?"

Since obviously we don't want to make drastic immediate changes, we need to start forming some kind of plan to make smarter choices, invest in new technologies and put our brightest minds on finding solutions. Not waste our brightest mind on a debate that in most scientists mind is not a debate anymore.

An example is why does north america have some of the lowest emission standards in the western world?

Collectively with our focus on making the world a cleaner and less polluted place we can reverse our impact while not hurting our economies, jobs, etc..

Surely thats more useful than what we are doing now.

See this a perfect example of half truths for the masses. If smoking is the sole reason for causing cancer, than why didn't the oldest person on record to ever live get cancer after smoking well into her 110's? Why didn't my grandmother get cancer after 50 years of smoking? Why did her husband get cancer after 50 years of smoking? Smoking isn't good for you and there is no doubt that it is a contributing factor to cancer, but why did my grandmother live into her 90's after a life of smoking without cancer and her husband only lived to his 70's after a life of smoking to only die from throat cancer....What is the difference here, you certainly can't conclude from that small sample size that smoking caused cancer, there is more too it, diet (which you would think between the two should be the same) neither were obese....but on thing that is different..genetics...its only part of the story....you can certainly say the smoking conributed to my grandfathers cancer, but we will never no if he never smoked what would of happened. Why did Lance Armstrong get cancer in his 30's...healthy, fit, you have to think he ate well, he certainly exercised, did all the right things, but guess what he was genetically programmed...and there prob wasnt anything he could of done..although his healty certianly helped him beat the odds...

Why did a question your statement? Pretty ubsurd isnt it? Mel taking you to task on smoking causes cancer? Well cause in my own life i have seen two people do the samething for a long time only to end up with different results...Why can't i question these things? To me there is more too it...than just blanket statements fed to the masses

That is the point to the global warming debate, (if there is no debate it isnt science)...there is more too it, there are things we yet don't understand, there are things we can't forsee.....

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Fly-by, or drive-by. Take your pick.
What does assumer mean?

So you think that this plane that was found in 92 means the arguements for climate change are over?

1. How did you conclude that? The fact that you are taking this angle with me, speaks volumes.

2. I made myself clear in my post why i brought up that example..someone wanted to know how its possible that people still question it....i made it clear why i still question it.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

See this a perfect example of half truths for the masses. If smoking is the sole reason for causing cancer, than why didn't the oldest person on record to ever live get cancer after smoking well into her 110's? Why didn't my grandmother get cancer after 50 years of smoking? Why did her husband get cancer after 50 years of smoking? Smoking isn't good for you and there is no doubt that it is a contributing factor to cancer, but why did my grandmother live into her 90's after a life of smoking without cancer and her husband only lived to his 70's after a life of smoking to only die from throat cancer....What is the difference here, you certainly can't conclude from that small sample size that smoking caused cancer, there is more too it, diet (which you would think between the two should be the same) neither were obese....but on thing that is different..genetics...its only part of the story....you can certainly say the smoking conributed to my grandfathers cancer, but we will never no if he never smoked what would of happened.

I think smoking and its dangers is one of the most well examined causes of cancer, albeit I would agree there are other massively bad problems out there like diet/obesity, chemicals in our daily food intake, etc..

However to say that smoking causes cancer is half truth is silly, you may have a grandmother who lived to 90 who smoked all her life, I had a mother who died from throat/lung cancer caused by smoking, while my father who has smoked since 12yrs old (now 73) is cancer free.

The thing the tobacco industry was trying to do was not associate smoking with cancer, which is ridiculous because of the direct proof of it.

BTW no one has ever claimed smoking to be the sole cause of cancer, all the science done was to show it can cause cancer. I have never seen anyone claim smoking was the 'sole cause of cancer' but a large contributor to it if you are a smoker.

[Gozer]

I'll be in the "The huge unstable ball of fire in the sky controls this stuff" until someone can give me an argument that is a better fit for Occam's Razor.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Thor

I think smoking and its dangers is one of the most well examined causes of cancer, albeit I would agree there are other massively bad problems out there like diet/obesity, chemicals in our daily food intake, etc..

However to say that smoking causes cancer is half truth is silly, you may have a grandmother who lived to 90 who smoked all her life, I had a mother who died from throat/lung cancer caused by smoking, while my father who has smoked since 12yrs old (now 73) is cancer free.

The thing the tobacco industry was trying to do was not associate smoking with cancer, which is ridiculous because of the direct proof of it.

BTW no one has ever claimed smoking to be the sole cause of cancer, all the science done was to show it can cause cancer. I have never seen anyone claim smoking was the 'sole cause of cancer' but a large contributor to it if you are a smoker.

It is a half truth..or half the story, cause if smoking caused cancer than my grandmother would have gotten cancer. But she didnt, prob thanks to her genes..which would be the other half of the story...certain people have a genetic desposition to get cancer from smoking some don't..in fact there are alot of non smokers who still get cancer at all ages!!! So there is more to the story, i am not sure nature is that linear, just my opinion...

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

1. How did you conclude that? The fact that you are taking this angle with me, speaks volumes.

2. I made myself clear in my post why i brought up that example..someone wanted to know how its possible that people still question it....i made it clear why i still question it.

Hmm another question I see.

So your post makes it clear that is why you doubt the issues.
Yet somehow when I pick up on that I've assumed wrong and it speaks volumes?
How does it speak volumes?

[MelBridgeman]

Ya i know its hard for people to be told that something they believe may not be the case...

round and round you go!

[MelBridgeman]

Actually Flame On, can i ask you a question?

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Ya i know its hard for people to be told that something they believe may not be the case...

round and round you go!

You should be a politician.
It's not hard because you've convinced me of nothing.

2. I made myself clear in my post why i brought up that example..someone wanted to know how its possible that people still question it....i made it clear why i still question it.

So you question it based on the story you posted. As you just mention above in your quote.
Then you jump on me for assuming what you just said yourself you're basing your arguement on and say that speak volumes!
Again I ask you how it speaks volumes?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Flame On

You should be a politician.
It's not hard because you've convinced me of nothing.

So you question it based on the story you posted. As you just mention above in your quote.
Then you jump on me for assuming what you just said yourself you're basing your arguement on and say that speak volumes!
Again I ask you how it speaks volumes?

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. Someone stated he found it hard to believe that people still had doubts...in my post i illustrated a reason why someone could still have doubts..Al Gore (politician) says Greenland ice pak is melting...ok so it is, then i read an article about the plane and wonder how the ice pak is melting when that plane was buried under 250+ feet of snow....

As an intelligent and educated person, i am couldnt help but ask questions, because it didnt make sense to me...

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Well I hear you too. And it's not like I don't admit that issues such as ethanol and all the corn being used to make it aren't far worse for the environment than the situation before. Stripping of forests to make room for corn crops is devastating.
However, i think if most people (populaces, governments, agencies, political parties) were on board with what is happening the solutions would be easier to come by than the situation we have now.

See I see danger in people getting on board when we're not sure where the train is going.

There are two cuts of action.

Common sense action that means less polution, taking care of the environment, and doing what you can to be less wasteful. If that's on board I'll drive the train.

But massive government initiatives to chase down policies that aren't even proven to do a pittance of what they aim to achieve is scary.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flame On

That was sort of my point about his post Dis.

I guess you missed the last two questions of his post.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flames89

Scientists that are FAR more qualified than any of us. As far as a "conspiracy theory" that they are all being influenced by some greater power, then that is another issue all together.

So here is one small facet of the "scientists"



Unfortunately I don't have the time to dig up the HUNDREDS of scientists involved in this study to put their qualifications infront of you. I also don't have time to pull the same qualifications from the THOUSANDS of scientists who have agreed on this issue.

Yes, the media says "scientists", because, by nature, a media piece has to be accessible to the common folk. What you want is a monster bibliography with every written word.

Experts and scientists say smoking is bad for you ...

Man, you have really gone off the deep end on this.

I didn't ask you to show me anything. I said these were questions that needed to be asked. I want to be clear, I have not once said the study was flawed. I have not once said that I don't believe the conclusions to be true. Yet you have come after my posts full force. Weird.

Your labelling of money influencing results as a conspiracy theory is a bit naive.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Bingo

See I see danger in people getting on board when we're not sure where the train is going.

There are two cuts of action.

Common sense action that means less polution, taking care of the environment, and doing what you can to be less wasteful. If that's on board I'll drive the train.

But massive government initiatives to chase down policies that aren't even proven to do a pittance of what they aim to achieve is scary.

Well I say "on board" in a different way I think.
I don't mean everyone on board with action without thought.
I mean in a more AA sort of way. You have to acknowledge the problem before it can be effectively addressed. So I'd like to see those groups I mention come together and be "yes we know we are creating climate change" and now that we all agree on that we can start to put some practices in place to address issues. Like the ones you mention.
I might be a little more aggresive but agree that half cocked isn't much better than what we have now.
But for example, I don't see why they can't legislate a ban on conventional bulbs in say 2 years. YEs it will hurt the industry now if they can't adapt, if they haven't already. But hey, we all have to adapt when the price of food and gas goes up and lets face it many can't.
Why should industry be different?